Detroit, Obamacare, and Unexpected Consequences

Based on building debt? Hardly. Accordng to the cbo, this year's projected deficit* is about 50% lower than it was expected to be a couple weeks before Obama took office in 2009.

Can you say 50% lower deficit? Not very Detroit-ish, huh?


*deficit refers to the debt that the US is taking on this year. The "national debt" is the debt of the US since its founding. Typically, people who try to pin the national debt on any particular president are fundamentally dishonest. But sometimes they're just stupid.

The cbo is also projecting that the defict to decrease until 2017 and then start increasing rapidly. It also doesn't factor in the unfunded ss and medicare liability of over $60,000 billion. In time ss and medicare expenditures will consume all of the tax revenue; leaving no money for any thing else

As rapidly as it increased under Bush? Or Reagan? Hardly.

The cbo is projecting that the defict will hit $1 trillion which is obama like numbers.

The real point is that there is no long term serious plan to reduce the defict

The projected deficit for 2009, two weeks before Bush left office, was $1.2 trillion. So $1 trillion, plus $200 billion, are Bush like numbers.

About half of that total in 2013 are Obama like numbers. Anyone with integrity would admit that.

obama with huge majorities in congress were in charge in 2009 & they had the power to reduce the deficit in many ways. They chose not to do so & thus the deficit belongs to obama. After being in office for 5 years, the entire deficit belongs to him

i. Re: the federal deficit

It seems that Mssrs. hoops2 and forkushV are agreed that a lower federal deficit/debt is preferable to a higher one. They are merely arguing over who should lower it.
This is a good sign.


Now, . . . back to the topic and Detroit's plan; foisting unfunded municipal obligations onto the federal government will, by definition, cost the federal government money.

ii. Another unexpected consequence

To garner support for Obamacare the Senate in its wisdom included in the law a requirement that ". . . members of Congress and thousands of their aides are required to get their coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges. [i.e. These folks will lose their participation in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, available to most federal employees.]
But the law does not provide any obvious way for the federal government to continue paying its share of the premiums for the comprehensive coverage."

DonDiego predicts the White House, via the Office of Personnel Management, will come up with a not-so-obvious way to subsidize these employees' health care insurance costs, . . . probably a simple regulation decreeing it. However, without Congressional authorization such expenses may not be paid legally.
It's a puzzlement.
Ref: Obamacare Wrinkle

DonDiego will now offer an opinion on these matters: It would've been wiser to read the Bill before they passed it.

Austerity during the 2009 recession would have been insane. Absolutely insane. Uncle Sam was the only force keeping the economy afloat, it was the ONLY thing that kept the nation from a true depression.

Moreover, this supposed "huge majority" in the Senate is a myth. First, it was just 58 Dems, not 60. Second, it lasted only six months, not a year. And third, Sens. Lieberman, Baucus, Conrad, Lincoln, and Nelson were more like free agents that year, far more conservative and rarely going along with the President without significant cajoling given the total obstruction advocated by the GOP minority. Hell, Lieberman endorsed McCain!

But I guess comfortable falsehoods are more pleasing than actual truths.

Detoliet!

Nesalk needs to chime in on this one.

I didn't say super majority. 58-42 is a huge majority